Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CS SCJ 990/25
AJAY MITTAL AND ORS
Vs.
DEEPALI RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ORS
29.11.2025
Present: Mr. Sarthi Vats, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs
through VC.
Defendants no. 2 & 4 in person.
Mr. Vinod Bansal, General Secretary, RWA, through
VC.
Mr. Rhythm Nagpal, Ld. Counsel for the defendants
through VC.
Matter returned back from mediation as not settled.
In view of the above, since arguments on the aspect
of concealment were already heard on 13.10.2025, orders are
required to be pronounced.
Kept awaited for 04:00 PM.
(Gaurav Sharma)
JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge
North West/Rohini Courts/Delhi
29.11.2025
AT 04:00 PM
Present: None.
The only limited point stressed upon by Ld. Counsel
for the defendants to be taken up and adjudicated first is with
regards concealment by the plaintiff of another civil suit bearing
no. 1418/2024 having been already filed by the plaintiff against
the defendants. It is stated that in such proceedings, interim relief
was not allowed to the plaintiff and in fact, matter was put up for
arguments on maintainability vide order dated 31.05.2025.
pg. no. 1/4
-- 1 of 4 --
Based upon the same, it is argued that the plaintiff has filed the
present suit surreptitiously and without disclosing the previous
proceedings and was also able to secure stay of the impending
elections vide order dated 03.09.2025. As such therefore, Ld.
Counsel for the defendants states that since there was
concealment, all orders passed by this Court stand vitiated and on
this very ground, the plaintiff suit must fail. Copies of several
authorities have been filed seeking to enforce such an assertion.
Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff on the other hand has
denied any concealment having been made. It is instead stated
that the earlier proceedings, in CS 1418/24 pending before the
Court of Ld. ACJ concerned are altogether on a different aspect,
dealing with regards collection of Rs. 1,000/- from members of
RWA only, in an unauthorized manner. The present suit, as per
the plaintiff, is completely different in context seeking to restrain
the defendants from conducting elections qua the RWA and
obtaining injunction relief in that regard. Even otherwise, it is
averred that in the pleadings filed on plaintiff behalf, a written
reply of the defendants addressed to the Registrar of Societies in
response to a clarification having been sought was already
annexed, in which pendency of the previous proceedings is
clearly alluded to. If that be so, no allegation of concealment can
be levelled.
Record perused. Submissions heard.
The Court finds force in the contentions of the
plaintiff. Pleadings are not only represented by the plaint alone
but are the sum total of all the documents filed alongwith. It is
indeed seen that at pg. no. 127 & 128, plaintiff had already
annexed communication made between the defendants and the
pg. no. 2/4
-- 2 of 4 --
Registrar of Societies where at paragraph no. 7, previous
proceedings in CS 1418/2024 have been specifically referred to
alongwith all the background factual details. Such documents
were filed on the same date (23.08.2025) as the remaining all
documents filed by the plaintiff alognwith the pleadings.
Considering the same, it cannot be taken to mean that the
plaintiff concealed the information qua prior proceedings. The
Court vide order dated 03.09.2025 summoned the defendants
after taking into account such pleadings upon perusal of the
record in entirety. Each and every document perused obviously
cannot be specifically reflected in the summoning order and the
contention that disclosure qua documents on pg. 127 & 128 is not
specifically made in the summoning order is an argument liable
to be rejected. Moreover, the Court is also in agreement with the
plaintiff that for now, at prima facie level, the suit previously
filed by the plaintiff and the one now before the Court are seen to
be distinct, with separate reliefs sought, there being different
causes of action for both. The present suit in particular is seen to
have been filed with regards restraining the defendants from
going ahead with the elections slated to be held on 14.09.2025,
which obviously was not a fact which gave rise to the
requirement of institution of the previous proceedings by CS No.
1418/24, which was filed much earlier in the year 2025.
Considering the same, the orders passed in the previous suit,
upon which things may not strictly turn in the present
proceedings (though having overlapping factual details) would
not even amount to concealment per se. Nevertheless, as stated
above, documents filed with the pleadings already disclose
details about previous proceedings having been instituted.
pg. no. 3/4
-- 3 of 4 --
Considering the above, looked at from whichever
angle, this Court is not in agreement with the argument of
concealment and it is accordingly rejected. In view of the same,
authorities relied upon by the defendants as well are seen not to
come to his aid as the aspect of concealment itself is not
established.
Having said so, the principal grievance of both the
sides is with regards creating proper atmosphere for conducting
of elections of the RWA in a free and fair manner. The Court also
conforms to the view that the parties must put their feet down
and work towards holding proper elections without further delay.
The stay granted qua the same cannot run indefinitely and time is
of the essence.
In view of the above, re-list for arguments on the
aspect of feasibility of conducting elections without delay on
19.12.2025.
Copy of this order be given dasti.
(Gaurav Sharma)
JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge
North West/Rohini Courts/Delhi
29.11.2025
pg. no. 4/4
-- 4 of 4 --